In the movie BRAZIL there has been a terrorist bombing. They show
some crusty expert being interviewed on television and being asked
what is behind the bombings. He sagely responds "bad
sportsmanship." It sounded funny at the time. What is behind our
terrorism? What is behind Muslim rage? To try to explain it in a
few paragraphs is a fool's errand. This is assuming even I
understand it, which I do not claim to do fully. But let me take
a crack at my belief as to what it is all about.

Today Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. But in a
broader sense it has declined a great deal. There was a time when
Islam was by any objective standards the leading civilization on
the planet. For about a millennium it had constantly grown and
outgrew all other civilization. European civilization was small
by comparison and it was making inroads even there. In
southwestern Europe their territory went as far north as parts of
France. With a good deal of justification they saw themselves as
the center of truth and enlightenment. And they still saw
themselves as surrounded by infidels and barbarians and it was
their duty to bring to the non-Islamic world the enlightenment
that they had and that Allah wanted for all.

Even then they saw as their chief challenging power Christian
Europe who also had a creed that wanted to conquer the world and
convert everybody. It was inevitable that these two civilizations
would clash and when it happened it would be violent. And of
course it was and that conflict continues.

Flash forward to the present. European civilization, now also
including the United States, has greater power. Islam still holds
many countries, but not a whole lot of power. And even in the
countries it holds European ideas are taking hold. Throughout the
Middle East people wear Levis, drink Coca-Cola, and watch American
movies and TV. Islam has lost a huge piece of the territory it
once held. Even in the countries that it holds Islam has lost
political control of its destiny. More and more its decisions
have to be tempered with consideration of what the West thinks.
And even in their own homes Western ideas are creeping in. The
Koran tells them that women should have very little control of
their destinies and must remain dominated by males. This is very
important in the Koran. Islam sanctions polygamy and the use of
concubines. But American television which is so popular tells
their children that women are the equal and frequently even
smarter than men. When America fought in the Middle East they
showed on the world television positive images of independent
women in military clothing doing the fighting. This was a
powerful and to them threatening contrast to the Islamic message.

The great corrupting force, in the eyes of their clerics and as a
result their people, is the US. The US is the Great Satan. It is
not because they have such different values. Europe has nudity on
commercial television and a much freer view of acceptable morals.
The United States is by comparison staid and morally conservative.
The proportions of atheists and agnostics are much lower in the US
than in Europe. But the United States has economic power. If the
message is more conservative than Europe's would be, the medium is
a lot more powerful. The United States has the power to complain
about human rights in Islamic countries and even to interfere in
their politics. America supports Israel, a country of infidels,
right here in the midst of Moslem countries. Their goal is to re-
conquer all the lands they have lost and here in the center of
their territory is a country of infidels. It is hole in the
Moslem world like the hole in the ozone layer. Israel embraces
Western values and Western culture including Women's Liberation
and the country is economically successful much beyond the levels
of its Islamic neighbors. The more the neighbors see people
prospering in spite of not following the Koran's teachings, the
more they struggle to remove it from their sight. They want to
see Israel fail and if the natural forces of Allah are not doing
the job they will give them a push. But so far even with their
help the great Allah seems powerless. This enrages them.

All of this makes Moslems feel ineffective. They are in a
competition and losing the game. Americans by in large do not buy
their products, watch their programs, and Americans have much more
leverage about what happens in Moslem countries than Moslem
countries have in the US. So what do they want to do? They want
to slap America in the face. The face of America is the Manhattan
skyline. It has little to do with the real conflict. They are
playing the game and are losing the game. That frustrates them.
So what do they do? They go beyond the usually accepted rules and
hit their opponent. It is venting a rage like when one hockey
player hits another with his stick. So the crusty expert in
BRAZIL had some truth. Though it is a lot more serious there
really is something in the terrorism that is akin to what the
crusty old gent would call "bad sportsmanship." [-mrl]

This week we take a look at crime and gangster films that are soon
to be released. I cannot help but notice that the name of David
Mamet shows up several times in these reviews. His is probably
the most respected name in crime film these days and certainly his
films are the standard by with others are measured. This is both
for their gritty realism and his style of dialog. Appropriately
enough we begin with a film written and directed by Mamet.

CAPSULE: This is one of David Mamet's best. It is a razor-sharp
crime film. Gene Hackman stars as a very smart robber pulled into
one final heist for a crime lord played by Danny DeVito. Clever
robbery plans and double crosses stud the plot. And the Mamet
dialog is great even if the Mamet stagy acting is not always so
hot. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to +4)

One never quite knows what one is going to get with a Mamet film.
His AMERICAN BUFFALO is a set-bound piece that has very little
plot. Sometimes he will tell a story that really moves. HEIST is
Mamet doing his most entertaining work. Unlike his THE SPANISH
PRISONER, there are no lapses in credibility. HEIST is probably
the best Mamet thriller since HOUSE OF GAMES. It is the kind of
plot with which you are never sure who will double-cross whom, and
frequently it is Mamet double-crossing the viewer. Watching the
film's team getting around security the viewer is frequently
asking himself either "what the heck are they doing?" or "why
didn't anybody think of that before?"

Appropriately enough HEIST opens with a very clever jewelry store
job. It is so clever that one wonders if Mamet really thinks up
all these ideas himself or if he has help from professional
magician and con expert Ricky Jay, now a regular actor in Mamet
films. This is a robbery that works like a well-oiled machine.
There is just one problem and it is enough to get Joe Moore
(played by Gene Hackman) filmed on a security camera. Now Joe has
to get out of the business. It was coming time anyway. Joe's
team including Bobby Blane (Delroy Lindo), Fran Moor (Rebecca
Pidgeon), and Pinky Pincus (Ricky Jay) is going to split up and go
separate ways. But crime boss Bergman (Danny DeVito) is pulling
the strings and he says that Joe and his people have to manage one
more robbery. And he has to take along a young kid, the short-
fused Jimmy Silk (Sam Rockwell). Immediately it is obvious that
there is more going on than meets the eye.

Much of what distinguishes HEIST is Mamet's dialog. Remarkably it
serves a double purpose. The robbery team sounds at once very
professional and at the same time it has Mamet's special feel for
dialog. Hackman has lines like "Everybody needs money. That's
why they call it money." Mamet's timing is perfect in the
direction but terrible in the production. The plot is
coincidentally a lot like the plot of the recent THE SCORE, which
is, in fact, a very similar story. Both are good films, perhaps
for some of the same reasons. But at least on a high level they
are much the same story. The other problem with the timing of
HEIST is that it involves airport security and clever ways to get
around them. I saw the film at the Toronto International Film
Festival on September 12, 2001. That made the subject matter just
a little too timely. My understanding is that the release will be
delayed.

My biggest problem with the film is that Rebecca Pidgeon's acting
at times seems very poor. It is some kind of Mamet trademark I do
not understand to have women talk without inflection, as if they
are just reading the words for the first time. It is an
irritation and distracts us from what is otherwise a very good
thriller. It is one I rate an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high
+2 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]

CAPSULE: David Lynch writes and directs a different sort of movie
for him. This is a mystery with a very tricky set of plot twists.
I interpret this film as an attempt to taunt and play with the
genre and its fans. This is a film that has people getting
together to discuss what it all means when it is over. Still
overall I cannot recommend the film. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), low 0
(-4 to +4) Heavy Spoiler: This review will not reveal any plot
twists but will be followed by a spoiler section that will discuss
the subtle point of the film and the idea of the film is not
obvious until the end.

MULHOLLAND DRIVE did very well at the Cannes Film Festival. As
you can see from the rating it did not do very well from me at the
Toronto International Film Festival. It may not be clear to the
viewer why I am so negative on this film for most of the running
time. In fact it is an interesting mystery story told on the
backdrop of the Hollywood film industry. Toward the end of the
film I think everything that has been built falls apart. The film
was to be a pilot for a TV series but writer and director David
Lynch did not sell his TV pilot and I think he decided that he
wanted to do something else with it. Something else is what he
did.

The film opens with a woman (played by Laura Harring) about to be
killed in a car when a car crash saves her life. She crawls away
from the accident with a concussion and finds herself a bungalow
with an unlocked door to sleep. Meanwhile young vivacious Betty
(Naomi Watts) arrives in Hollywood from Canada. She wants to
build a career as an actress. Betty is a little surprised to find
a woman sleeping in the borrowed bungalow. She does not know who
the woman is. She is even more surprised when the woman awakes
and does not herself know who she is. They fix on a name Rita for
her, but are not sure if this right or not.

Meanwhile local director Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux) has problems
of his own. He is trying to cast one actress for his new film and
is getting pressure from the producers and from crime figures to
cast someone else, Cammie Rhodes (Melissa George). These two
threads are joined by a third one in which there is a strange and
comic murder that goes terribly wrong. There is also a strange
character called The Cowboy (Monty Montgomery) adding to the
confusion.

In what was probably intended for the television pilot the film
opens with a great vibrancy showing dancing 60s style under the
credits. A lot of MULHOLLAND DRIVE starts out fun. Lynch wants
you to know he could make an enjoyable stylish film. He just
chooses not to. As with any David Lynch film there is strange
material added for little reason. There are no earthworms, but
there are some decidedly strange David Lynch touches. The film is
a little long for the subject matter. Toward the end it gets into
some heavier violence and sex scenes, clearly not intended for the
TV pilot.

Unfortunately some of the most important comments to make about
this film would be spoilers. I will not mention them in the main
body of the review but I give MULHOLLAND DRIVE a 4 on the 0 to 10
scale and a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.

MULHOLLAND DRIVE Spoiler Warning. I have rated this film fairly
low. You should read this only after seeing the film or deciding
that you will not see the film.

David Lynch is in large part a dark satirist. Most of his work is
done in familiar genres but in some way shows their underside. In
MULHOLLAND DRIVE I think he is having a laugh at the expense of
the crime film genre. What he does with this film is (Are you
sure you want to read this?) playing off the audience expectations
that there will be a simple explanation for what is going on. The
first 80% of the film he tells a simple multi-thread crime story
with clues sprinkled throughout. Then suddenly at the end he
turns the story on its ear with a large number of clues that
appear that they should add up to something. The audience
expectation is that they will add up. But he has given clues that
are self-contradictory. Lynch wants the audience to argue about
what they have seen afterward and come up with theories. In fact,
the pointers are noticeably contradictory and until I hear a
better explanation, I think Lynch is merely playing a joke.

There is a visual curiosity that was popular in the sixties. Mad
Magazine called it a Poiuyt. Other sources called it a Tri-
pronged U-bar. Look at small portions of it and makes sense.
Look at the whole figure and it does not. This film is, in my
estimation, the cinematic equivalent of a Tri-pronged U-bar. [-mrl]

CAPSULE: An Argentinean film very much in the mold of HOUSE OF
GAMES. An experienced con man takes a younger one under his wing
and involves him in a plot involving a valuable block of stamps
and a complex game of double-crosses. A little clever plotting
and a lot that is familiar, particularly from David Mamet.
Rating: 6 (0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4)

Perhaps this film should be called an homage. It certainly is a
film very much in the spirit of David Mamet's HOUSE OF GAMES. Two
con men meet when the younger, Juan (played by Gaston Pauls) gets
himself into trouble and the more experienced Marcos (Ricardo
Darin) bails him out. Marcos offers friendship and a one-day
course in the short con. He shows a restaurant con to give the
illusion of having paid for his meal with a large bill. But then
he suggests that Juan help him on a bigger con. The two will get
their hands on a near perfect forgery of a plate of valuable rare
postage stamps. Soon the viewer is not sure who is doing what to
whom. Complicating matters is Valeria, Marco's successful sister
who is less than pleased with her brother's occupation.

NINE QUEENS was written and directed by Fabian Bielinsky of
Argentina. This is his first time as director. He has created a
sufficiently twisty plot, though the plot and situation is far
from original. It is a diverting enough puzzle when watching it
and thinking of possibilities. This is not a film that leaves one
with a lot to think about but it is diverting. I rate it a 6 on
the 0 to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]

CAPSULE: This is a film from Australia with overtones of David
Mamet and of OF MICE AND MEN. Two lowlifes get a chance to groom
a greyhound for racing for a gangster. They want to parlay this
into a stab at the good life. SILENT PARTNER is basically a two-
character play adapted to the screen. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high
+1 (-4 to +4)

SILENT PARTNER is a two-person play adapted to the screen with
virtually no dialog from anyone but John and Bill (played David
Field and Syd Brisbane). They are two lowlifes with dreams who
live mostly on borrowed money and spend it on beer and the
occasional bet at the dog track. Through thick accents and
drunken talk we follow them as they have a shot at the big time.
A shady kingpin, Alex Silver, sees them at the racetrack and
decides to use them in a scheme involving dog racing. Silver
wants John and Bill to buy a greyhound, care for her, and race her
locally. He will give them the money to tend the dog in return
for 70% of the dog's winnings. The drunken pair name the dog
"Silent Partner" after Silver's role in the deal. Bill develops a
genuine affection for the dog. Bill's outings training the dog
are some of the few scenes where we see him sober and we see John
sober in even fewer, yet Bill lets John run the show and allows
himself to become almost a silent partner. John never doubts he
has what it takes to swim with the sharks. Through the alcohol
haze John thinks he is smart and worldly, though frequently his
skill seems limited to knowing whom he can hit up for one of the
ever decreasing loans. The two have little social life without
each other and it rarely is at anyplace but bars, the track, the
squalid filthy house, and the occasional peep show. People like
John and Bill are unusual subjects for film, thank goodness.

The timing of the dialog is a little too perfect to be believed as
the two talk with nearly perfect timing. The Daniel Keene's
dialog, based on his own play, is unnaturally perfect, much as
David Mamet might craft it. Mamet might also approve of the
underbelly society and grimy settings. Director Alkinos
Tsilimidos filmed SILENT PARTNER almost linearly to create more
natural emotions from his actors, but he kept crew ignorant of the
script to aid in spontaneity. The film was shot for an amazing
$7000 US.

Technically, the film is probably a comedy but it is not the kind
of comedy that generates laughter. More frequently it is just an
exercise in bitter irony. The songs by Paul Kelly are, like the
dialog, a little too perfect. In some cases the songs give away
plot that is coming. Americans will likely have some problems
picking up the entire dialog. That can be a problem since
Silver's plan is never clearly explained.

SILENT PARTNER is a bitter black comedy delivered in a thick
inebriated Australian accent. I rate it a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale
and a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]

CAPSULE: Beautifully filmed, this is perhaps the best English
gangster film since THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY. It is sharp as a
stiletto, entirely etched in tones of blue and black. A hit man
gets involved in the lives of an old friend and his wife. Rating:
8 (0 to 10), low +3 (-4 to +4)

This is the best British gangster film since THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY.
Jon Bennet (played by Andrew Howard) is an extremely good
assassin. As such he is probably an evil man but it does not
worry him. He has become an unquestioning weapon. He is in the
employ of a kingpin (David Calder) far more evil than he is. But
even assassins have innocent pasts. He runs into an old from
school days and he is married to a mutual girl friend from school.
Complicating matters is that they live near where he had a recent
job and their young daughter may have seen him at the crime.

A big piece of what makes this film work is the depiction of the
kingpin. Calder is a familiar actor in Britain, though not
frequently seen in the US. He was seen in THE WORLD IS NOT
ENOUGH. Here he creates one of the best screen villains in recent
years. He is at once seductive and repellent like a beautiful
venomous snake. His lair is underground, apparently in a sewer,
where he lives like the king of sewer rats. It is the kingpin who
pulls the strings that will control Bennet's life.

Paul Sarossy who directs spent most of his career as a
cinematographer and like the kingpin's lair, he has molded images
of class and style out of the darkness. By using semi-darkness
and letting the colors of deep blue and black dominate every scene
he makes the film visually as ominous as anything in this nether
world. This is a world that is cold and unfriendly.

Sorossy creates a world of violence much more by what we hear than
what we see. This is a film with a great deal of physical
violence occurring just out of reach. We see very little but we
hear a great deal more and we imagine more than that.

The screenplay is by Peter Waddington based on the novel by Neil
Cross, but it is Sarossy's film all the way. It creates indelible
images of evil. I rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +3
on the -4 to +4 scale. (I do hope they do not use the tagline
"Don't mess with Mr. In-between.") [-mrl]

Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that
faith does not prove anything.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche